quans...@quanstro.net:
> u-boot has several drawbacks that have hindered my development
> ...
> i worked on an embedded pcie endpoint, and all these factors cost
> me 4-5 weeks of dev time, time enough that i could have brought the
> board up myself directly with plan 9 as a bootloader in tht amoun
> To mimic the usual Unix behaviour, I would need some getty/login-alike
> program, which asks for login credentials and then starts up things
> like shell or gui (some window-manager-/DE-alike program) as the
> corresponding, which then is _not_ the hostowner.
For this sort of functionality the c
On Tuesday 02 December 2014 09:32:22 Richard Miller wrote:
> It's easier just to be
> lazy and let u-boot do it.
Sorry for hijacking a bit. There was a mention on this list a couple of months
ago about work on getting Plan9 working on UEFI/GPT machines...
whoever that was - any progress?
UEFI support was written for 9front by ci ap. It has been tested on the x230
and in OVMF. I have an working gpt editor but it needs cleanup.
by 'ci ap' i meant cinap_lenrek.
> One of the functions u-boot performs is configuring the various subsystems
> in the SoC (individual clocks and power settings for subcomponents, gpio
> pin functions, ...) -- things a BIOS would do in a more old-timey computer.
> In my experience these are typically undocumented (or worse, incorr
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:10 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> One of the functions u-boot performs is configuring the various subsystems
>> in the SoC (individual clocks and power settings for subcomponents, gpio
>> pin functions, ...) -- things a BIOS would do in a more old-timey computer.
>> In my ex
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:08:04PM -0800, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:46:08 +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
>> So, how would a Plan9 solution for these usecases look like ?
>>
>> In fact, I intend to rewrite network-manager to some 9p-based solution,
>> so I'd lik
Hi guys!
I think the doc about adding a new user is outdated (or it's just me
that can't make it work properly) so I would be very grateful if
someone could describe the steps of adding a new user in terms so that
even I can understand. Thanks a lot!
Kind regards,
Mats
what didn't work? Are you using the labs distribution, 9front or 9atom?
On 12/02/2014 10:40 AM, plann...@sigint.cs.purdue.edu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:08:04PM -0800, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:46:08 +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
So, how would a Plan9 solution for these usecases look like ?
In fact, I intend to rewrite n
> I think the doc about adding a new user is outdated (or it's just me
> that can't make it work properly) so I would be very grateful if
> someone could describe the steps of adding a new user in terms so that
> even I can understand. Thanks a lot!
Which doc?
What steps did you take?
What happe
what 'doc' do you refer to? what didn't work properly? nobody can help you if
you don't explain what the problem is.
if i understand correctly, the basic issues you're trying to solve (beyond
authentication), are "delegation" and "authorization". because you're
targeting non-plan9 environments, my comments will be focused on those
environments.
any decent IT with heterogeneous OS environments will have a Kerbero
9love is tough love.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:40 AM, wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:08:04PM -0800, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:46:08 +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> wrote:
> >> So, how would a Plan9 solution for these usecases look like ?
> >>
> >> In fact, I
OK my bad. The question I asked was like thinking out loud without
giving details. So I'm using Plan 9 on the Raspberry Pi (Plan 9 from
Bell Labs that is). The problem is that after running "uname
" (can't reproduce right now since my screen/TV is occupied) the
rc shell is put on hold and in the d
Hi again!
Missed "adm" in adm + in my brief explanation earlier. Think
I'll first check for a command in /bin/rc that would be more
appropriate than 'uname'. There just must be one more obvious that
I've missed. Well, will see tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Mats
2014-12-02 21:54 GMT+01:00, Mats Olsson :
The following is 9front-specific but is still generally useful:
http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/issues/detail?id=207
sl
On 02.12.2014 16:21, Steven Stallion wrote:
apropos kernel/bootloader: I just recently had a look at the code
and somewhat got the impression that 9load seems to be a specially
tailored plan9 kernel, which then loads the real kernel.
is that correct or am I mistaken here ?
cu
--
Enrico Weigel
Em 02/12/2014 19:59, "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <
enrico.weig...@gr13.net> escreveu:
>
> On 02.12.2014 16:21, Steven Stallion wrote:
>
>
>
> apropos kernel/bootloader: I just recently had a look at the code
> and somewhat got the impression that 9load seems to be a specially
> tailored pla
On 02.12.2014 10:50, Richard Miller wrote:
> For this sort of functionality the computer needs to be running as
> a plan 9 cpu server, not a terminal in which by definition hostowner
> controls everything.
>
> Somewhere in /contrib there is a patch which makes a few changes to
> the cpu kernel to
On 02.12.2014 16:40, plann...@sigint.cs.purdue.edu wrote:
> To be fair, he's not talking about using Plan 9, just leveraging something
> factotum-like under Linux.
Exactly.
I wanna get rid of dbus and polkit, replace it by something 9P-based.
Before hacking up something on my own, I'm just loo
On 02.12.2014 23:02, Iruatã Souza wrote:
>> apropos kernel/bootloader: I just recently had a look at the code
>> and somewhat got the impression that 9load seems to be a specially
>> tailored plan9 kernel, which then loads the real kernel.
>>
>> is that correct or am I mistaken here ?
>
> Correct
as far as I can remember, Plan 9 (Bell Labs) as 9load expect each other.
9front, on the other hand, got rid of 9load for its own good.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 02.12.2014 23:02, Iruatã Souza wrote:
>
>>> apropos kernel/bootloader: I just recentl
I think one of the reason 9load is quite complicated is because
they wanted to boot a kernel from the network, so you need a network stack and
the drivers for the ethernet card, so you really need lots of OS code in the
end.
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
On Tue Dec 2 13:48:46 PST 2014, s...@9front.org wrote:
> The following is 9front-specific but is still generally useful:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/issues/detail?id=207
i believe the user is running kfs, so see kfscmd(8) for details.
- erik
On Tue Dec 2 16:40:27 PST 2014, quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
> On Tue Dec 2 13:48:46 PST 2014, s...@9front.org wrote:
> > The following is 9front-specific but is still generally useful:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/issues/detail?id=207
>
> i believe the user is running kfs, so se
27 matches
Mail list logo
